Problem 1 is an uncomfortable situation (maybe that's why it's called a Problem): we've got almost enough to be happy forcing to game, but not quite, especially when we don't know what sort of a fit we've got. At IMPs we'd just bid game, but at Matchpoints maybe it's best to invite? Alternatively, there's a middle ground: we can double, though that certainly doesn't show a sixth spade. Let's hear first from those who opt to go low:

Damo Nair: 3. A bit cautious at MPs

Alex Kemeny (with Daniel Braun, Robert Black and Tania Black, similarly): 3. Good 6 card majors bear repeating.

Peter Robinson: 3. My initial optimism has gradually subsided through 4, then 4 to 4, and now I'm wondering whether I should just double (see Law of Total Tricks). A minor game on repeated trump leads looks problematic. Spades look vulnerable to a force, and if partner has wastage in hearts, 3 isn't even an underbid. Partner is in a better position to judge whether his spade and heart holdings are worth 4 or perhaps 3NT.

David Matthews: 3. Game interest allowing partner to evaluate his hand in support of Spades. 

Rainer Herrmann: 3. not forcing, but certainly encouraging. 

Michael Burt: 3. Partner looks to be a minimum and game is probably not on but it might be if partner knows that I am more than a minimum with long spades. I'm not certain 3 is going off but 3 should have a good chance of making. 

Conny Wahlgren: 3. So partner can bid 3NT when it's right :) 

Tim Trahair: 3. We have the majority of the HCP and we need to show partner our strength. If N has two spades, 4 should be on as we have at least 4 spade winners.

Bridge Baron: 3. My hand is at the top of the range for this bid; nevertheless, it's within the range. Show the sixth spade and give partner a chance to decide among 3NT, 4, or chickening out in 3.

Kees Schaafsma: 3. 18 total tricks. 10 tricks are more likely for our side than theirs, alas there's no way to find that out and pard is not barred from bidding 4.

These panellists all (seem to) intend 3 as invitational. However, bear in mind that it's just a minimum bid of a suit that we've already shown. On the expert panel, Sartaj Hans pointed out that 3 isn't invitational. Sometimes we just want to play there with, for example, QJ10xxx-x-Kxxx-xx. With that in mind, can we be convinced that it's wise to go high instead?

Jacco Hop: 4. Bid what I think I can make - even opposite a small doubleton in spades we might still have a good chance

Ian McCance: 4. Good texture, hoping not to lose control

Michael Smart: 4. I'm not going to risk trying to land on a dime by being passed out in 3, since this should have a good play opposite any minimum with a doubleton.

John R Mayne: 4. Let's pick off both strain and level without more partner cooperation, because anything that involves partner will misstate strength or shape. 

Peter Nuoristo: 4. not much room to investigate, bid what I hope is playable

Jack Lai: 4. Partner at most 3 card Hearts, Spade should have some cards. 4 should be near

Martyn Rew: 4. Partner has to good for dropping at least a couple of losers here

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. restraining myself from a slam try. but opposite some minimums 6 is possible

However, if we insist on forcing to game, we don't have to start with a 4 bid. A minority view was that we should bid 4 - let's hear the rationale:

Anne Paul: 4. 7 loser hand forcing to 4 or 5 clubs gives partner a choice

Emil Battista: 4. Normally I would bid 3 in a trice, but I have promised Roger Yandle I would consider my bids a few milliseconds more. Not stopping short of game - rightly or wrongly

While I sympathize with the sentiment (forcing to game with uncertainty about strain), I'm not sure that 4 is the way to do it. Three experts considered 4, but thought that partner wouldn't bid 4 when it was right often enough. And why should he? With no space below game, it's a punt. We could have as few as four spades, so with a hand like KQ-QJx-xx-KQJxxx, he may just bid the 'safe' 5.

If we're not doing that maybe we should consider Double:

Rex Fox: Dbl. Doesn't look like pard is strong or got spade support. Double is more for penalties.

Dan Baker: Dbl. Extra values, can handle anything partner bids (and my defensive values won't disappoint if he passes). Will pass 3NT or bid 4 over anything else.

I'm with Dan. I don't have many specific rules around this, but given that 1) it's only my second turn to act; 2) we're still well below game in either of our suits; and 3) they've found a fit, it seems that double should be takeout. (I'd also play double as takeout if RHO had bid 4). Before we proceed, let's hear from some of those who rejected it:

Griff Ware: 3. Double could be the winner, but partner will gamble a pass on a bunch of hands where it turns out we belonged in spades.

Duncan Roe: 3. I'm sure I'd bid this at the table. Dbl has some attraction, but doesn't convey my spade strength to partner

Nigel Guthrie: 3. Over a double, partner might bid a minor, so 3 seems enough

Ron Landgraff: 3. Dbl leads to Clubs, Ugh! Or Diamonds, double Ugh! 4 is not unreasonable, but watch out for pards wasted Heart values

It may (or may not) lead to clubs, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Partner will bid 3 on all hands with three and some hands with two; and if he has fewer than two, he must have club length. Putting all of that together, if Partner bids clubs, we're in at least an 8-card fit. 

Roger Yandle: Dbl. the lure of +200 might be my undoing here if pard respond 4!

Wayne Somerville: 3. It's close to being a game force, but the possibility of partner being 1345 (if you don't open 1 with that) or 1336 is off-putting

I'm not sure why Wayne is worried about proceedings when partner is 1336: with that, we have a 9-card fit. I suspect that Wayne would have agreed with double if anyone had suggested it to him, as it solves all of these problems. One final point is that if partner bids clubs, that's not the end of the auction: we can still bid 4 to suggest a contract. With a 1345, he'll (reluctantly) pass 4; with 1336, he'll correct to 5. Let's hear the comments of those who actually did double:

Deana Wilson: Dbl. 3 has made it difficult. South has tolerance for every suit and 3 isn't forcing.

Zbych Bednarek: Dbl. 3 would be an underbid

Brian Lawless: Dbl. We ought to be able to find a good resting place in Spades or Clubs. Too good for 3 as that sounds to be competing only for the part score

Hans van Vooren: Dbl. Leaving open most options.

Julian Foster: Dbl. Seems the most flexible option. I wonder if my 1 showed 5 the first time (X being 4)?

The more that I look at this, the more I think of Goldilocks: 4 it too high, 3 is too low, but Double is just right. However, as always, I've been outvoted.

First things first: what has partner shown? He has Double, 2, 2, 2NT and 3 also at his disposal. There was disappointingly little comment from the expert panel about what each of those bids shows. However, given that most experts were happy to make non-forcing below-game bids, it seems that they were expecting partner to double with a strong hand, even if he holds extreme shape - and they were unanimous that he has that, as he could bid 2 with 5-5. The consensus was therefore that it should be at least 6-5. Even with that much agreement though, there was a wide range of answers, from Pass to 4. However, all of them moved towards (or stayed in) a black suit. Nobody, however, raised the possibility that he might have 5 spades and 6 clubs. I like bidding my long suit first, but the world is moving towards bidding 5-card majors first.

Our readers had different ideas from the panel's: a third bid 3 or 3NT. Not many of those who did gave us their projected hand for partner; those who did thought that 5-5 was an acceptable shape. So there's a disconnect between the different expectations. 

However, the expert panel did all whereas a quarter of our panellists bid 3NT - so let's hear from the optimists first, starting with a few for our complaints department:

Wayne Somerville: 3NT. I would have doubled 1NT at MPs, now I suspect we have close to 9 top tricks.

Michael Smart: 3NT. Why the pessimism over 1NT!? Partner has shown great playing strength, but my kings aren't going to help much in a black suit contract.

Bridge Baron: 3NT. Why on earth did I pass last round? Do I not like defending doubled 1NT contracts when I knew, even before partner's 3 bid, that our partnership had at least the majority of the strength in the deal? Anyway, even though partner didn't double and thus should have a hand that's at least fairly unbalanced, we don't seem to have found a fit yet, so as it happens, off to 3NT we go. With a freak, partner can correct to 4 or 5 as appropriate.

David Matthews: 3NT. I cannot pass but 5 Clubs is too far, so the only likely making game is 3NT. With all the points marked we should be able to bring this home.

Duncan Roe: 3NT. My clubs might give us 2 more tricks in a club contract, but the oppos might take 3 top ticks. Partner is showing 5-5 spades / clubs, so only 3 red cards. An overtrick in 3NT will beat 5, so go for 3NT

Ron Landgraff: 3NT. Nine easier than 11. Five clubs may fail with east having at least one spade stop.

Daniel Braun: 3NT. unsure here, Matchpoints is swinging me towards this bid

3NT is a better Matchpoints spot than 5 only if each contract makes an overtrick, which seems unlikely. There was one taker for 5 ... 

Ron Landgraff: 5. I can't believe I did this at Matchpoints! But East's NT does not bode well for Spades. And where are the Hearts? With 26-27 combined points, we need to be in game. Would 4 be forcing? 

No, it wouldn't. Ron's obviously expecting a different hand from what others are expecting; but even opposite the 18-count that Ron's playing partner for, 4 should probably be only invitational. However, given partner's extreme shape, 5 seems more likely to make than 3NT, and if it goes off it may well go less off, as the opponents can run only so many red-suit tricks before we can ruff in.

A few panellists started to reconstruct North's hand, but slightly different expectations led to very different bids:

Robert Black: 3. Not certain we have a game. In 3NT, for example, I would not fancy a heart lead.

Dan Baker: 3. Lack of a transfer by West suggests that partner's shape is 5-2-1-5, with hearts splitting 4-4. Even so, with a heart lead I need running clubs and S AK (or help in hearts or the A) to make 3NT. Honors in partner's short suits aren't too useful. Will try for 140 instead of 130; I'd pass at IMPs.

Roger Yandle: 3NT. it looks like pard has got a heart fragment since W hasn't spoken so hopefully it's something useful. Even if it's not then with hearts 4-4 3NT stands a good chance.

Although others didn't elaborate on partner's expected shape, they seem to be thinking along the same lines as Roger. As noted above, there seems to be a difference in expectations about what 3 shows. If Hearts are 4-4, partner must be 5305. this means that unless both black suits are solid, they'll take at least three hearts, the diamond Ace and a black suit trick unless both suits are solid. However with (for example) AKQxx-xxx-void-AKQxx, wouldn't partner have doubled 1NT? And if partner has that much, what is left for the 1NT bid?

So if not 3NT, maybe another bid that the experts overlooked:

Anne Paul: 3. Just showing a stopper on the way to 3NT

Julian Foster: 3. Sounds like partner has a lot of black cards so 3NT (my 1st instinct) is probably too dangerous on a (likely) lead. Hope this is stopper showing so partner can bid 3NT if he does stop Hs. Otherwise heading for 5. I can't have a weak hand with long s or I'd have bid 2 the 1st time. But I can't have much more than I have got or I'd have doubled the 1st time.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. suggesting 3NT (I cannot have the long diamonds as I would have bid them before), but 5 may be safer; but this is mp. will raise 3 to 4.

Tim Trahair: 3. We have the majority of the HCP and N has reversed. 3 shows him we have strength in s and reasonable HCP enabling him to go to 3NT with a good stopper or to try 4th suit forcing if not.

These panellists were thinking along similar lines to the 3NT bidders, but realised that we may need partner's co-operation. Taking the slow road to 3NT won't make that contract any better, but at least it gives partner a chance to pull to 4 or 4 when it's right. However, it doesn't give partner information about black suit length (better clubs but definite spade tolerance, opposite the expected 6-card suit) that may be crucial for deciding between 4 and 5, so even if we're not bidding 3NT, we are only slightly better placed than those who bid it directly.

That's also assuming that partner is on the same wavelength about the meaning of 3. If he had bid 2, 2 by us would clearly be non-forcing with long diamonds. Does showing a distributional hand commit us to playing in opener's suit(s)? I wouldn't have thought so. How would we bid with x-xxxx-J109xxxx-x? Maybe we'd bid 2 over 1NT, but might be worried about bidding on a possibly-misfitting 1-count, when partner can easily get carried away. I doubt that many pairs would have discussed what's a fairly specialised auction.

Amongst the experts, fully a quarter thought that we are already high enough, and these readers agree:

Rex Fox: Pass. Looks like too many losers, get a plus. Pard could have AKxxxx x x AQJxx still game is dicey. Our K's not much value

Rex's example hand looks to be about normal in terms of high card strength. But where are all the Hearts? Surely 6-2-0-5 is more likely than 6-1-1-5 when they're not bidding that suit. 

Griff Ware: Pass. Sounds like doubling 1NT was a winner here. Now the question is: can we make game? 5 is very doubtful given we have no points in partner's suits and no aces. If partner is 6-5 we might be making 4, but again that's a stretch. I expect a heart lead against 3NT to set up enough defensive tricks for the opponents, and any black cards they have are sitting over partner. So I think the likelihood of making game is low, and this is MP.

Martyn Rew: Pass. East's spade stoppers over partner makes spades and NT look unattractive places to play.

Emil Battista: Pass. I am treating my RHO with respect. Some 1NT overcallers I would treat with disdain

Phil Hocking: Pass. Easts bid shows 15-18 HCP and I assume a spade stopper so may have either the A and/or K in spades. That leaves at best 22-25 our way. Partner has at best 18HCP. Sounds like 9-10 tricks in clubs or 8-9 in spades. Show suit preference.

Peter Paton: Pass. Can't see myself being of any help.

The alliterative Peter, and others in this group, are all correct, but no one other than Griff noted that we're playing Matchpoints here. Obviously +110 in 3 when the room is -50 in 3 will be huge, as will +130 vs +110. But going +110 or +130 in 3 won't be worth much if the room is making +140 for playing in 3. Most of the 3 bidders believe that the second scenario is more likely than the first - can they convince the rest of us?

Alex Kemeny: 3. Partner should have 6-4 or 6-5. With 5-5 black suits it is much better to open 1 then bid spades twice, or rebid 2 when holding reversing values.

It was once very popular to open 1 with 5-5 in the blacks, and the idea has a lot of merit, but that is now much less popular than once it was.

Michael Burt: 3. 3 should make fairly easily and 3NT is likely to go off. 4 may be difficult to make with the 1NT overcall. We'll probably just get home in 3 and it should score better than 3.

Peter Robinson: 3. In view of East's bid, North must be partly acting on shape, but the more shape he has, the more likely that my hand is a pseudo-Yarborough. Since East is likely to have at least 3 defensive tricks (S: Kx plus 2 aces), the eleven-trick contract is out. If East also has : Qxx, 9 tricks may be the limit, but I can probably just afford 3,since my K holds up the force.

Ian McCance: 3. Only because it's MPs. My red cards should protect partner from being tapped out

Tania Black (with HA de Jong similarly): 3. Probably as many tricks in Spades as in Clubs.

It's good that these panellists recognised that 3 is just preference, and doesn't show desire to go any higher. Some, however, did want to encourage partner - after all, we have an 8-count and four-card support, neither of which we've shown

Jack Lai: 4. 5 might not be good as both red suit hold Ks instead of As. Try invite and wait for partner decision

Kees Schaafsma: 4. Constructive. 3 is not forcing (2NT is), 2 already shows a 5-5 in my book so I can't afford to pass. 

Peter Nuoristo: 4. or 5 clubs, but my guess is that p will not stop below 5 clubs

Rainer Herrmann: 4. Partner could have AKxxxx-xx-void-KQJxx or more and game is quite reasonable. 

Jacco Hop: 4. We have enough to justify bidding one more. Partner might have Something like AJ9xxx-xx-void-KQJxx and with this type of hand he didn't want them to come in cheap.

Conny Wahlgren: 4. Partner is not kidding. Both kings could be extremely valuable and East is on lead. Pass is for cowards.

Finally, a few wanted to bid game directly

Damo Nair: 4. Another MP bid. The 8 HCP appear wasted. Still, 4 should have a reasonable chance. N did see my pass over 1NT.

We'll start with the optimists:

Zbych Bednarek: 4. Autosplinter (on Spades), looking for a Diamond cue bid. The hand is worth slam try if partner has nothing in clubs - a hand like Ax, AQ, A.

Anne Paul: 4. Shows shortage in clubs gives partner a choice to go on to 6 or 7 in suit of his choice

Phil Hocking: 4. Splinter bid expecting partner may have to devalue club honours and stopping in 4. 

Hmmm ... three possibilities for what suit we're playing. Luckily, we have an expert panel to help us resolve the meaning, so I checked what the two 4 bidders had to say about the bid's meaning:

No help, there, then. What do the other 4 bidders say?

Martyn Rew: 4. The double fit in the majors makes 6 look very gettable. 7 is there with the right 18-19 points.

When I said optimists, I meant it.

Tania Black: 4. Gerber. I feel lucky!

Well ... you're lucky to be getting the same score for 4 as those who agreed with the expert panellists that it's a splinter.

However, most panellists, both readers and experts, set their sights lower. Let's see what they have to say:

Deana Wilson: 3. Game force check back partner shows spade support or suits up the line. 6 of a major could be on.

This isn't a standard treatment, at least not where I come from. Over a 1NT rebid, 2 is invitational and 2 is game forcing. But it's a lot easier just playing that any bid over 2NT is game forcing , so 3 is the only checkback that you need. That means incidentally, that if you want to make a forcing bid to show heart support or extra spade length, 3M is fine. This should assuage the fears of ... 

Ian McCance: 4. 3 if it's forcing, but maybe 4 ok

Brian Lawless: 4. My preferred style is that both 3 and 3 are forcing but my partner (Australian experience) does not agree! Less danger of a bad trump break spoiling things in S so 4 it has to be. Could be missing a good slam because of a system defect.

Jacco Hop: 4. The notes don't specify the follow up and 3 could be Non forcing? With such a strong spade suit I think it is pretty likely that will gain us a trick more than playing in hearts lets say partner has xx AJxxx AQx AKx And that is a hand with xx in spades change the jack of hearts for the Jack of spades and we are close to 6 spades and likely only 4.

Damo Nair: 3. I'm assuming 3 is 100% forcing.

Some, however, were happy to sign off anyway, such as:

Barbara Hunter: 4. Not sure if this is right

Conny Wahlgren: 4. Hmm?

This group is far from certain about strain, so maybe they should start a level lower.

Alex Kemeny: 4. Close between this and 4. I am weaker so it may play better in S but against that, 4 may protect partner from a diamond lead. 

Gary Lane: 4. If 3 is check back asking for 3 card spade support I want to change my bid to 3.

Tim Trahair: 4. It looks as if we have an 8 card fit in both majors but probably not enough for slam. 4 is tempting although it is better if the strong hand plays the contract.

Bridge Baron: 4. Would have made a limit raise to 3 last round. As it is, my ruffing value in clubs versus partner's probable lack of side-suit shortness points to game in hearts rather than spades.

David Matthews: 4. Lots of thoughts on this one. Do I support partner or rebid my Spades? Is 3 pades forcing on this action? If so that would be my bid. I certainly do not want partner to pass a 3 Spade bid so I must bid 4 Hearts or 4 Spades. If partner was 1534 or 1543 then he would jump rebid in the minor. Its looking more than likely that he is 2533. So the best contract is likely to be in my 6 card suit. 

Rex Fox: 4. Seems the sensible contract. Bit wimpish to bid anything less

Duncan Roe: 4. Was thinking of 3NT (this is Matchpoints after all) but oppos might manage to run a long unbid suit. The trump contract guards against that

Roger Yandle: 4. with a double fit slam might be on but at MPs I'm settling for game.

One panellist used a home-grown Stayman variant to find the best spot. While it seems like a good method, it's not part of AB Standard.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. methods? In my regular partnership I would now bid 3 establishing a game force for the majors (3-answer = 3-5 majors; 3NT denies 3 and good ). then a 4 -cuebid (short as I promise at least 8 cards in the majors) would invite partner to judge whether we belong in slam.

However, the majority of experts, and about half the readers, opted for the slow road - some for 3, some for 3 and one more subtle approach ...

Griff Ware: 3. We have a decent slam if partner has A, AQ and A, and that's only 14 HCP. Although the chance of slam it not great, it will be much higher if partner has no wastage. So I intend to lie about my shape a little in order to emphasise my shortage: I'm bidding 3 and then, if partner does not bid 3NT, I'll bid 4 on the next round, showing a mild slam try with 5-3-4-1 or similar. At MPs, it will be an interesting problem if partner bids 3NT over 3, since 3NT might now be the highest scoring spot … but it will be a guess.

As for the others, all chose 3 or 3 although. Disappointingly, few of the 3 bidders gave reasons as to their choice of suit, but these two were exceptions ... 

Wayne Somerville: 3. Partner will know about our spade length from our failure to raise the first time.

Julian Foster: 3. Seems obvious. This surely must be forcing. If I was so weak as to only take 1 bid I'd have raised s the 1st time. 

I'm not sure that I agree with Wayne and Julian's reasoning. Sometimes, we just need partner to know where our length is so that he can place the contract later.

Hans van Vooren: 3. Forcing, in my book. No reason to bid like this with a weak hand. Now partner knows about the fit and the second source of tricks and can cooperate intelligently in a slam try.

Daniel Braun: 3. Help a brother out.

That was our youth contingent, just in case you missed it.

Peter Robinson: 3. I can see how some would regard spades as the best trump suit, but we know the KQ are working in any contract, so I'll encourage a little cooperation. 3 is forcing, of course.

Michael Smart: 3. If I bid 3 and partner bids 3NT, 4 may then be taken as a simple correction without slam interest...whereas 3 immediately implies slam aspirations (since 4 immediately would be weaker). Note that the spade suit isn't necessarily lost: if partner cues A en route to slam, I can correct to 6. 

Jack Lai: 3. See whether partner could cue bid and decide whether to go to slam

Robert Black: 3. We have a double fit and a game forcing auction, so I go slowly.

Michael Burt: 3. We should score more tricks in hearts than in no trumps and at Matchpoints that is better. The delayed rise in hearts indicates a better than minimum hand and so we should at least end up in game. Slam is a possibility although it is probably not on. The 3 bid keeps options open.

The 3 bidders didn't all give a reason, such as ... 

HA de Jong (and Pravin Nahar similarly): 3. Forcing after 2NT

Emil Battista: 3. Let's see what response this elicits. 

Kees Schaafsma: 3. Setting hearts because of the singleton club seems illusive.

Rainer Herrmann: 3. Bid where you live. If North raises you are done If North bids 3NT you can show describe your hand well with 4 And if North cue-bids you can show your crucial king of hearts without going beyond game. 

Dan Baker: 3. Entries to use the long spades could be problematic in hearts (Jx AQJxx AQx Axx with a club lead), so I pick spades. Slam or even grand could be on if partner has something like Axx AQxxx Ax Axx.

Ron Landgraff: 3. Even opposite a doubleton, Spades may play better. I fear the Spades may set up in Hearts, but can he get to them? If pard has Spades we are off to the races!

Barbara Hunter: 4NT. Let's see if partner has 3 Aces.

A few of the 3NT bidders noted that three Aces may not be enough to make slam, given our lack of tricks, and the fact that partner is unlikely to have any more, given that he could rebid only 2.

Everyone else jumped, but most jumped to 3NT. The outliers were ... 

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. If partner doesn't cue hearts I stop in 5. But I cannot disregard the slam-chances opposite the minimum-opener with three aces and 6+ diamonds. 3 as art GF would help here.

Michael Smart: 4. Please cue (1st or 2nd, hopefully). Irrespective of cue style, partner will always proceed to slam holding 3 bullets.

Wayne Somerville: 4. This is somewhat dependent on agreements in the consequent auction. If I bid 4, we can never get to 4NT when it's right (xx Ax Axxxxx QJx), but we rate to be fine anyway. 4 will pretty much ensure we get to 6 when partner has 3 aces and some form of heart control once we start cuebidding.

 ... and ... 

Duncan Roe: 5. Partner has bid diamonds twice missing KQJ. He figures to have a whole lot of them, so the diamond game is the obvious choice.

Surely it makes more sense to look at our own hand rather than project partner's? 4333 argues for a 3NT bid. There's not much to choose between the two: although the chances of slam are slim, it could make, so 4 would be better; however, bidding slowly my help the defence to lead a club through the King, for example.

However, while most acknowledged that slam could make, they thought that the chances were remote enough to just sign off, and thought that 4333 argued for a 3NT bid. 

Daniel Braun: 3NT. partner needs 3 aces for slam. he can't also have a king. so the best possible hand is something like AJ-Ax-Axxxxxx-xx. No hand with 6 diamonds has a good slam.

Our resident Australian representative wasn't slightly confident that slam would be no play ... 

Griff Ware: 3NT. Giving up the slam when partner holds 3 Aces and the K: in that situation partner probably should have done more (perhaps opening 1NT off-shape). Otherwise, the chance of slam usually requires a singleton heart, and it's all too hard without some artificial gadgetry to find that out - also partner's unlikely to cooperate with any tries holding empty diamonds.

The others angled for 3NT, or bid it directly. First, let's hear quickly from the minority. Unfortunately, none of the 2 bidders commented, so we'll start with those who bid 3 - some angling for 3NT and some for 5 or 6:

Damo Nair: 3. 3NT looks a bit unilateral. Keeping it open, 5 could be right. Or even 4 on a 4-3 fit.

Phil Hocking: 3. A good fit in diamonds with likely shortages but not 4 aces or 3 aces and a king. a 2 bid is too weak. Does 4NT finding 2 aces have us over-bidding? 3 at least forcing for one round. 

Julian Foster: 3. Downside of this it is implies 5 but if partner bids 3 (or if he bids 3NT) I can make a try with 4. If he does something else then we can head towards 5 or 6 (which is cold opposite as little as Axx x A10xxxx AQx, hence I think I'm too good to just bid 3NT over 2)

Brian Lawless: 3. Forcing but not promising 5 spades. Several possible outcomes here.

Dan Baker: 3. I need to know if partner has a heart honor. If he does, he'll bid 3NT here and I can ask for aces. If he doesn't, 3NT is probably right, although the perfect hand with a singleton heart (AJx x Axxxxx Axx) makes 6.

Kees Schaafsma: 3. Now pard can bid any hand and I can cope with any sequel. Hope springs eternally.

Conny Wahlgren: 3. or 3 NT, or 4 , or 3 if its forcing or 4 NT if partner has 3 aces or....

However, most noted the honours in every suit and the fact that we may make 3NT on brute strength, and eschewed subtlety for the obvious bid. This makes sense to me, as 3 seems to suggest Heart weakness - and there's no reason to think that Clubs, rather than Hearts, will be the problem. A quick survey of the 3NT bidders' rationales:

Michael Burt: 3NT. Good points but bad shape. My partner is a minimum and slam is probably not there. Settle for game.

Peter Robinson: 3NT. I don't get it. If I'm forced to play a system where a one-over-one may show 17+ points, surely the system tells me what to do with a balanced 17-count. If not, I'm sanguine about 3NT. The real problem arises when the balanced 17-count contains a bare suit that could be facing a singleton.

It's not that common to pick up 17-counts, and we can fudge those anyway, so the system deals with hands that we might otherwise struggle to bid.

Jacco Hop: 3NT. I would like to bid 2NT Forcing to ask for x-ton however that is not standard so not sure if I can find out if he has AJx x Axxxx Axx or something like Jxx Axx Axxxxx J where 3NT is not cold and 5 is.

Tim Trahair: 3NT. Possibly there is a slam in Diamonds on, but if so, how to find it? North is not showing much more than an opening hand and 6 + s. If NT is where we should be, then seems better to be played by the S hand.

We could look, but that would go past 3NT - and a couple of panellists lamented our lack of system ...

David Matthews: 3NT. Some soft points here so I will just bid game rather than chase an unlikely slam. Unfortunately using Minor Suit Key Card will take us past the likely best game of 3NT.

The rest were just not tempted:

Nigel Guthrie (with Robert Black, Ron Landgraff, Hans van Vooren, Emil Battista and Martyn Rew similarly): 3NT. With no aces, 3N should be the limit of our ambition.

Roger Yandle: 3NT. my hand looks better than it is (no aces, lots of Qs & Js) and I can't see any way to a sensible diamond slam if its on, so I'm settling for 3NT.

Rainer Herrmann: 3NT. I am not tempted with this rubbish.

Rex Fox: 3NT. Not liking it that much, but cannot find enough excuses for anything less

Ian McCance: 3NT. painted into a corner but shape discourages

Last word goes to the computer:

Bridge Baron: 3NT. Wins a simulation over 6NT easily, +457 to -172.5.

Also, what shape does partner have? Not all panellists expressed a view; the experts who did thought 5-5 likely, but some of the readers opined that 5-4 would be enough. First, let's look at the pessimistic group ... 

Michael Burt: 3NT. Fantastic hand and partner has points and shape but west almost certainly has Ace and Queen of clubs sitting behind my hand. Given north and west's bidding there are likely to be bad breaks in diamonds and possibly spades and hearts. Slam is may well not be a great proposition. 3NT has a good chance of making and the lead will be coming round to me. In the very unlikely event east has Ace spades, west still has to find that lead. 3NT could well outscore heart and spade contracts.

Julian Foster: 3NT. Feels like partner has shape here (with only 54xx there's a chance he'd X). So he may not be that strong and we don't have an obvious fit. Hence I'll go conservative. If s run then we probably want to play 6NT from my side. 4 would find that out - if partner raises then you can try 6NT. Trouble is if he can't raise you can't get back to playing 4NT from your hand and are likely to end in 4M with the lead coming through your s - which will be bad at Matchpoints.

Rainer Herrmann: 3NT. Hamman's rule

Ian McCance: 3NT. Hardest of all in a difficult set. If partner has anything useful in diamonds I've missed a slam. I don't think we should play in a major with KJ exposed.

Nigel Guthrie: 3NT. But is 4 forcing? and what does 4 mean?

Roger Yandle: 3NT. slam could well be on in lots of different strains but the pre-empt has jammed us for space so I'm bidding what I think will make.

Wayne Somerville: 3NT. Very pessimistic, but I feel we need to be playing this to protect the lead, and 4 is gambling too much on us finding a fit there.

There was a minority who wanted to sign off in another game:

Tania Black: 5. I can probably stand a Club lead. And if Diamonds are 7-2-2-2, like my shape, it looks to make!

With a good portion of the panel moving slamwards, Tania's obviously not feeling so lucky any more ... 

Anne Paul: 4. not sure what else to do with 2 losers in clubs but 5 losers so have to be in game. Alternative bid 3NT and hope diamonds break

I get that 4 or 5 will sometimes be the right spot, but why must we commit to that now? 3 and 4 are both forcing, and let partner help decide on both correct strain and correct level. I have similar concerns about the 3NT bid: it could well be right, but signing off when we don't know what level or strain is right doesn't seem right to me. As such, a majority of readers opted for bids with more flexibility - and, as always on strong hands, there were a few takers for both 4NT and 4:

Tim Trahair: 4NT. N has reversed and we have 18HCP, so slam should be on somewhere. In a recent BF, moderator was doubtful about using 5 Exclusion Blackwood because there had been no suit agreement and N might not know how to respond. This comment puzzled me as I would expect an expert pair to have worked out how to respond to a slam enquiry when there has been no suit agreement. Usually I base the KC enquiry on the last bid suit but others make it simply an A ask. If the best home is NT it may be better if played by S to protect the king - unless N turns up with the club ace!

This is scary - someone treating me as a reference. In that case, I'll have to start watching what I say. Yes, I did say that (and stand by it), and yes, a strong partnership should know what all of its bids mean. But Bidding Forum is about what you'd do with a basic system and good partner, not what you'd like your ideal system to be.

Emil Battista: 4NT. Again, let's see what response this elicits before we commit our side to an un-making slam.

Martyn Rew: 4NT. Diamond slam should be on here. Any key cards shown will not include hearts. Safer played by South with a club lead expected.

Bridge Baron: 4NT. If partner has no keycards, headed to 5; if one, headed to 6NT; if two, headed to 7NT regardless of the heart queen and the spade king. 

Phil Hocking: 4NT. Partner shows a strong 2 suiter. At best 13 HCP in hearts and spades and West hopefully has ace queen in clubs so partner may have queen (jack) in diamonds. Two other entries to cash all the diamonds so 6NT sounds possible.

Barbara Hunter: 4NT. Planning to be in 6NT

As on many other deals, we need to know a lot more than how many Aces partner has. Even if he has one, the right contract could be anything from 4 to 6NT. So maybe, with so much ambiguity as to strain, 4NT shouldn't be Blackwood at all.

Griff Ware: 4NT. This should be quantitative: I can bid 3 (forcing) to agree S, 4 to agree , and 4 to show more diamonds. The quant 4NT is certainly not the most descriptive bid available, and could get us to a bad spot a bunch of the time. But it's MPs, and 4NT is the only bid that keeps NT in the picture while also making a slam try.

As I said, I like the sentiment and I think you can make a strong case that that's how 4NT should be played - I'm just not sure that that's how 4NT is played, at least by the majority of experts.

We had one panellist who took an even slower approach to making a quantitative bid: 

Zbych Bednarek: 4. Partner has 5-5-(2-1). With short clubs he should bid 5 over 4, after which I'll bid slam. With short Diamonds he should bid 4 or 4 over 4; after that 4NT from me should be to play (Matchpoints scoring!!!) 

Some eschewed the subtle approach entirely and just bid what they thought they could make.

Alex Kemeny: 6NT. Assuming W has A, Q then there are only 4 HCP or less missing. There are lots of ways we can run 12 tricks especially on A lead, (west not wanting to concede an over trick).

HA de Jong: 6NT. Very tough, but expect pard to have something like AQJxxx,QJxxx,x,x.or similar. The 3 intervention stopped us from a proper dialogue.

This seems optimistic to me. It's likely that Hearts will run, but Diamonds and Spades are much less likely, and once they've knocked our K, we're going to need 12 fast tricks to make slam. However, I admit that I prefer it to the plan of bidding 4NT and then 6NT: Partner's a heavy favourite to hold the A; once he shows a key card, we're bidding slam anyway, and if we bid it directly it may make the defence more difficult. However ... will 6NT make at all? There's a lot of bidding going on, so partner is likely to have a shapely hand.

It seems that 4, whatever it shows, always gets a few takers on slammish hands, and this deal was no exception. Let's see what the proponents say about it - both the meaning and the rationale behind bidding it.

Peter Robinson: 4. Again, I'd prefer to show this rock-crusher on the first round, but 4 now is OK. If partner shows diamond support, 6NT is a good punt – what could partner have for his free bid except great spades? If he persists with the majors, the anti-positional clubs and lack of running suits will be a wet blanket. Can't see 4 here as forcing. What else can I do with a moderate hand that can't stand the majors?

Dan Baker: 4. Give partner room to tell me something. Would love to hear 4 from partner with 5-5-2-1, honor doubleton. May be important for me to declare to avoid a club lead through.

Kees Schaafsma: 4. Maybe I'll hear 4. Nice set of problems.

Ron Landgraff: 4. This will torture partner, but I need more information. 4,4,5 and 6 are all possible. Even NT is still possible. If he reads 4 as a first round control, he may (perhaps justifiably) look for a new partner.

So it seems that these panellists all intend it as a general force. 4 got only one vote from the experts, which was on the assumption that it's a general force. Two others, Klinger and Kokish, mentioned it, but believe that it would be a slam try agreeing Hearts, which probably explains the lack of official support.

A small minority opted to show false preference ... 

Robert Black: 3. Another game forcing auction, surely, but in what? Spades Hearts Diamonds or NT are still possible.

Rex Fox: 3. Cannot see a great future, get a plus if that's at all possible

This bid is growing on me. Showing preference can often get us to the best fit (6-2, or even sometimes 5-2), especially as the Spade game is a level lower, and partner's likely to have a singleton Diamond. However, the bid also has its flaws: it wrongsides the Clubs, and greatly reduces our chances of reaching the most likely slam, namely 6. On, then, to the expert panel's preferred bid:

Jacco Hop: 4. 7card suits can be rebid.

Damo Nair: 4. Even at MPs I cannot bring myself to bid 3NT. Don't need much from N for a slam.

David Matthews: 4. I am interested in slam and this is Minor Suit Key Card in my system. Playing the hand also protects my King of Clubs. So long as partner has the required Key Cards we should be safe for 6NT at least. The worst outcome would be having to play in 5 Diamonds when 3NT is good for at least 11 tricks. 

Michael Smart: 4. If 2/1 wasn't GF, then partner's free bid of 3 committed us to game. That allows me to bid a forcing 4. 5 next round.

Duncan Roe: 4. Slam could be on, but we haven't agreed a suit yet. Show a strong hand with diamonds

Daniel Braun: 4. slammmm

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. this should be forcing, 4m in this sequence to play is too small a target to aim for. I'm trying to find 6. Risky if partner has (very) short diamonds. Alternative is the heart fit if partner now bids 4 that is probably a better contract

Brian Lawless: 4. Why aren't we playing strong jump shifts? That would prevent this problem arising. Partner must realise that I have a very strong single suited hand. I will bid 5 over both 4 and 4

Maybe this would have been better as a two-part problem, because, as on the expert panel, there was a wide range of views about what to bid next: some were happy to sign off in game; others were driving to slam, and some were looking to invite and leave the decision to partner. 

And that's us for another month. Next time you read this, the days will be warmer, the nights longer. If you happen to be playing in the ANC, come up and say hi. I'll leave you with the thoughts of a hard man to please:

John R Mayne: 4. I want to right-side this, and I want partner to have diamond support. And I want a pony. A nice pony, not one of those angry biting ponies. Sorry, drifted off. Good set of problems this month!

John, I give out two things: ponies and strident criticism. Unfortunately, I'm all out of ponies.